Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13664 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LAXMAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI LOKAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
4. SRI SHANKRAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ALBHAGYA Location:
HIGH ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, COURT OF RESIDENTS OF MATADAKURUBARAHATTI, KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA.
3. SRI DURUGAPPA S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
4. SRI H RAMAPPA S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
5. SRI KARIYAMMA W/O M NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6. SRI M NARASIMHAPPA S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R3 TO R6 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MATADAKURUBARAHATTI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.O.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6 (VK FILED))
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN SCPTL/CTA/1/10-11 DATED 18.01.2013 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN SCPTL (A)-19/2012-13 DATED 03.03.2021 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of purchaser feeling aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by the authorities wherein the petition filed by the legal heirs of grantees seeking restoration is allowed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner.
2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha2. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on
05.04.2021.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others4 has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations
where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.
4. In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one A.K. Mallappa vide order dated 24.4.1953. The grantee during his life time sold 3 acres 4 guntas in favour of Karadi Bhimappa on 22.1.1957. The legal heirs of the original grantee initiated action by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in 2010. The Assistant Commissioner after notifying the parties has allowed the application and ordered for restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of
51 years in initiating action. The authorities below have not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an
